From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Jeff Janes <jeff(dot)janes(at)gmail(dot)com>, Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: scram and \password |
Date: | 2017-03-17 13:42:21 |
Message-ID: | 28651.1489758141@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi> wrote:
>> It would make sense to have \password obey password_encryption GUC. Then
>> \password and ALTER USER would do the same thing, which would be less
>> surprising. Although it's also a bit weird for a GUC to affect client-side
>> behavior, so perhaps better to just document that \password will create a
>> SCRAM verifier, unless you explicitly tell it to create an MD5 hash, and add
>> a 'method' parameter to it.
> Either of those would be fine with me, but I think we should do one of them.
I vote for the second one; seems much less surprising and action-at-a-
distance-y. And I think the entire point of \password is to *not* do
exactly what a bare ALTER USER would do, but to superimpose a layer of
best practice on it. We certainly want to define use of SCRAM as being
best practice.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | David Steele | 2017-03-17 13:51:14 | Re: PATCH: Configurable file mode mask |
Previous Message | David Steele | 2017-03-17 13:41:49 | Re: [PATCH] ALTER DEFAULT PRIVILEGES with GRANT/REVOKE ON SCHEMAS |